Summary: On the G. Gordon Liddy Show recently, I discussed the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I made the case that she is unqualified for the job---or, more precisely, that she has disqualified herself for a job that requires objectivity and impartiality. Sotomayor has not only declared herself helpless to resist the emotional promptings of her "Latina soul" when adjudicating cases, but she believes that the subterranean influences from her Hispanic female experience will more often than not lead her to a "better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." With Sotomayor, it's all about her upbringing, her life story. Her "Latina identity" is a bubbling brew of internal influences---race, gender, religion, and who knows what else---whose swirling emotional fumes permeate the courtroom of her mind. Do you expect her to tell you in words how those influences will affect her judging next week, or next year? Don't fool yourself. How can she tell you what she herself doesn't know? Take the abortion controversy, for example. If the "woman" part of her "Latina identity" happens to be ascendant when she's ruling, she might swoon with "empathy" for the pregnant woman who fears the burdens of an unwanted child---and vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. But if the "Hispanic" part of her identity happens to be ascendant, with its heavy Catholic influence, she might recoil at abortion as an insult to God's will---and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. We won't know the outcome until her "Latina soul" comes face-to-face with the deadline for a decision. Whatever she decides, she has given us fair warning that no one has a right to judge her. To criticize her rulings would require an objective standard to which she must measure up. But she has declared, flat-out, that "'there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.'" This means that her "Latina soul" is above the Constitution, and any "white male" (or African-American woman, or Asian lesbian) who presumes to criticize her is only giving vent to the attitudes of his or her own upbringing. If this is the future of constitutional jurisprudence in America, then the Constitution is dead. Interestingly, right-wingers are falling all over themselves to concede that they lack the votes to block her confirmation. For example, the headline on Charles Krauthammer's op-ed in the Washington Post said it all: "Sotomayor: Rebut, Then Confirm." His strategy: "Use the upcoming hearings not to deny her the seat, but to illuminate her views." I think it's way too early to give up on the prospect of scuttling this nomination. Yes, the upcoming hearings should be used to expose her views. But then her nomination should be rejected by the full Senate. Sonia Sotomayor does not deserve a seat on the Supreme Court.
